Feb. 7
The San Diego Union-Tribune on extending drought rules:
With storm after storm filling reservoirs and swelling the Sierra Nevada snowpack to 171 percent of its historic average, Californians might be surprised that officials with the State Water Resources Control Board want to extend emergency statewide drought rules for 270 days instead of letting them expire Feb. 28. They argue that the snowpack can be rapidly depleted and say there are still dry conditions and unfilled reservoirs in parts of the state.
The agency’s oversight board will vote on the drought extension Wednesday. If members want to keep their credibility, they should vote no and instead choose only to extend the regulations for the handful of areas - starting with Santa Barbara and Ventura counties - where they still make sense.
The toughest mandates were dropped last year for areas in San Diego County and big cities across the state where water districts could establish they had three years of water supply in hand. Those that did no longer had to meet Gov. Jerry Brown’s complex 2015 mandate meant to yield an overall 25 percent reduction in water use in urban areas.
Especially given this fact, the argument made by the California Water Association make sense: Both local and state water agencies lose the trust of the public when they cry drought in contradiction to what’s actually happening.
This doesn’t mean Californians should stop being careful about their water consumption. It just means Brown and his administration should acknowledge the obvious. With the Sierra snowpack at its fullest in 22 years, the drought is all but over.
___
Feb. 7
The Press-Enterprise on repairing roads and highways:
As Sacramento continues to fiddle over addressing California’s massive and worsening deficiencies in highway and road repair, Assemblyman Marc Steinorth, R-Rancho Cucamonga, has once again introduced common-sense legislation with the potential to ease some of the problems.
Assembly Bill 278 calls for exempting existing roads and highways that have already been reviewed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act from additional reviews before maintenance and repair work can be done.
“Requiring another unnecessary step before repairing our broken infrastructure will only slow down and delay crucial maintenance,” Steinorth argues.
At a time when the state is dealing with a $59 billion maintenance backlog for state roads and bridges, and local governments even more than that, one would think a proposal to streamline repairs without compromising the environment or health of the public would be embraced by politicians who ostensibly represent the public.
Simply processing CEQA applications can add months of delay to projects that have already been vetted under the terms of the law. Steinorth’s bill is narrow in scope and simply modernizes a redundant process that doesn’t serve the best interests of the public.
Notably, the bill still requires compliance with other environmental laws, including the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and the California Endangered Species Act, which should allay concerns that this bill thwarts environmental protections.
Unfortunately, this isn’t the first time Steinorth has introduced legislation of this sort. Last year, he introduced a similar bill, AB1569, with strong support by the Southern California Association of Governments, the California Transportation Commission and the California Chamber of Commerce.
Many local government agencies also supported the bill, recognizing the potential for lowered costs to taxpayers and the expediting of needed maintenance.
“Full environmental reviews of routine maintenance or improvement projects for existing roadways, tunnels and bridges dramatically increases costs to the taxpayers, and creates significant delays to project completion, affecting commerce and the safety and quality of life of the traveling public,” argued San Bernardino County in support.
Despite these common-sense arguments, Steinorth’s proposal died in the California Assembly’s Committee on Natural Resources.
Committee Chair Das Williams, D-Carpinteria, argued at the time that Steinorth was simply trying to circumvent the state’s environmental laws and argued instead that Steinorth should support the favored policy of the Democrats. “Nice try … if you want to help, vote for a tax,” Williams told Steinorth.
Following the vote against the proposal, Steinorth correctly observed that the Legislature was out of touch with the practical, everyday needs of the public. “While they continue to kill any effort to prioritize critical road repairs, my constituents in the Inland Empire face long commutes on deteriorating roads every day,” said Steinorth.
Whether things will go any differently this time remains to be seen, but as was true last year, the idea of exempting existing roads and highways from reviews they have already undergone makes sense. Our roads and highways are in need of repair - superfluous reviews and processes should not be impediments to getting needed work done.
___
Feb. 5
Sacramento Bee on President Trump’s threat to cut funding for California:
In 2013, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott boasted to a friendly crowd of tea party supporters about a typical day: “I go into the office, I sue the federal government and I go home.”
Imagine the reaction if President Barack Obama had responded by appearing on a friendly cable show and declaring that Texas was out of control and that the feds might need to cut off the Lone Star State’s federal funding. Being sane, reasonable and law-abiding, he didn’t, of course.
And yet two weeks into his tenure, President Donald Trump, in all apparent seriousness, is threatening to weaponize federal revenues to keep California in line, not that he could legally do so.
Over the weekend, the new president told conservative Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly that the feds might cut off the state financially because California is “out of control.” Trump’s ill-informed riff came in response to a softball question about legislation that would turn California into what O’Reilly called a “sanctuary state.”
“If we have to, we’ll defund,” Trump said in the interview. “We give tremendous amounts of money to California; California in many ways is out of control, as you know.”
Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León has introduced Senate Bill 54, which would extend certain protections to undocumented immigrants. The bill is being amended, and we haven’t taken a position on it yet.
But as it stands, California schools and health facilities would be barred from sharing information about individuals’ immigration statuses with the feds. We agree. Educators and health care providers shouldn’t do double duty as immigration agents.
Police also would face some restrictions, though the legislation makes reference to federal laws requiring cooperation in certain circumstances. The bill should go a step further by making clear that the state would inform the feds as felons are being released from prison. California should not protect serious or violent felons from deportation.
But there is good reason to separate the work of local officers from that of immigration authorities. As The Los Angeles Times reported, then-Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates, hardly a softy, instituted Special Order 40 in 1979. The order barred officers from initiating contact with anyone for the sole purpose of learning their immigration status and ruled out arrests for immigration law violations.
The point was to help police build trust, without having crime victims and witnesses worry that they would be deported. That’s a reasonable policy, one that serves many police departments well.
Exactly what money Trump would seek to cut is unclear. Perhaps he would seek to tie law enforcement grants to his vision of what it means to cooperate with immigration authorities. We find it hard to imagine that Trump, who ran as the law-and-order candidate, would find it politically wise to cut federal grants to police.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office, using numbers produced by the New York state comptroller, the Tax Foundation and the Pew Charitable Trusts, pointed out in a report last month that California ranks in the bottom 10 states of per capita funding from the feds, and is at the upper end of states in taxes paid.
Of the $370 billion in federal money spent in California, $83 billion goes for Social Security, almost $70 billion for Medicare, and $50 billion for defense contracts and research here. There’s additional money for housing and food for poor people, salaries for federal workers, pensions and benefits for veterans. The state would likely sue if Trump sought to cut any of that.
Punching down at the Golden State might play well with Trump’s voters. But he comes off as authoritarian and ill-informed. The U.S. Treasury is not Trump’s personal bank account. Nor is California some errant child whose allowance can be cut off by whoever is sitting in Dad’s chair.
If the president believes this or any other state is overstepping its authority, he should turn to the Republican-controlled Congress, which holds the power of the nation’s purse strings.
Trump may think he is strong by issuing threats. In reality, he comes off like an out-of-control bully. No matter whom they supported in 2016, all voters should be alarmed at that.
___
Feb. 3
Mercury News on Calexit:
California declaring independence from the United States of America and going it alone is a colossally stupid idea.
“Yes California” soon will be gathering signatures for its advisory #Calexit folly, aiming to get it on the fall 2018 ballot. The movement is part egotistical lark, part epic hissy fit over the election of Donald Trump, and maybe - indulging the conspiracy theory du jour here, just for fun - an insidious plot to free the rest of the United States from California’s environmentalist and socially progressive influences.
Whatever the motives, it’s ridiculous.
At best, it will waste millions of dollars on a losing ballot measure. At worst it will start us down a costly, intellectually draining, dead-end path into a world of overwhelming unknowns.
More important, it will waste time and influence that otherwise could be devoted to repairing the politics of the nation to which we are inevitably tied. And would be even if we were technically independent.
For the challenges of independence, let’s start with the basics: writing a new Constitution. The movement several years ago to convene a state constitutional convention to fix just a few provisions was telling. People ran screaming from the prospect, fearing what could fly out of Pandora’s box if it were opened.
We’re all California Dreamin’ for sure. The thing is, we all have different dreams.
In an op-ed in January, Marcus Ruiz Evans, the founder of the Calexit movement, painted a Pollyanna picture of independence. Among other things, he said, don’t worry about a military - we have the National Guard! And we’re rich!
Yes, we have a part-time army our governor can call upon. But it is, ahem, connected to the U.S. military. (That’s why it’s “National,” see?) Of course we can start our own. It’s just a matter of cost. And of whether it will make us safer than being part of the United States. Or safe from the United States.
As to our wealth - it’s unclear whether we now send more tax dollars to Washington than we get back. It depends on what budget pockets you count. But today we are not running a State Department, negotiating treaties and trade deals, administering (and funding) our own Social Security, Medicare and on and on.
Let alone patrolling the long border on the east side of the Sierras to keep out those murderers and rapists from Nevada.
Even if California framed a coherent plan to exit, it would need a two-thirds vote in Congress and approval of three quarters of the state legislatures. Their standard will not be how happily-ever-after they can make us. It’ll be whether they’re better off without us.
If they think they are - then we’re really in trouble.
So before you sign one of those Calexit petitions, think about how much money and time you want to waste on this silliness.
Do the great state of California a favor. Just say no.
___
Feb. 2
Pasadena Star-News on regulatory reform in California:
The need for regulatory reform and relief has been recognized both in Sacramento and Washington, D.C. - and now there are some proposals to do something about it.
California’s dreadful business climate is no secret. It has ranked dead last in Chief Executive magazine’s annual “Best and Worst States for Business” survey of CEOs all 12 years the survey has been conducted, and again came in 50th in the “Taxation and Regulation” category last year.
But regulatory issues are not confined to California. Federal regulatory compliance costs totaled about $1.9 trillion in 2015 - nearly $15,000 per household each year - according to the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s most recent “Ten Thousand Commandments” report.
To address the problem, newly elected Assemblyman Vince Fong, R-Bakersfield, has introduced Assembly Bill 77, which would require the Legislature to approve proposed regulations estimated to cost $50 million or more. This would provide some measure of a check on regulatory agencies’ power, though the effect will be muted, at least in the short term, given the current Democratic supermajority, which seems never to have met an expansion of government power that it did not like.
“The cost of food energy, transportation and doing business continues to grow year after year because of the high-cost regulations that fall upon residents and businesses every day,” Fong said in a statement. “AB77 is a common-sense measure that will bring greater transparency and accountability to a regulatory system that too often overlooks the harmful and costly economic impacts that put at risk the livelihood of Californians throughout the state.”
At the national level, the House of Representatives already passed several regulatory reform measures last month, including the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2017, or the REINS Act. In similar fashion to the Fong bill in California, it would require both houses of Congress to approve regulations estimated to impose $100 million or more in costs before the regulations could go into effect.
The House also approved the Midnight Rules Relief Act, introduced by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista, which would allow Congress in a single vote to overturn numerous regulations - and potentially all of them - issued during the last seven months or so of Barack Obama’s presidency, and the Regulatory Accountability Act, which would require greater information and transparency of proposed rules, force agencies to choose the lowest-cost rulemaking alternative, allow courts to decide regulatory matters without deferring to the agency’s interpretation of the rules and postpone regulations estimated to cost $1 billion or more until legal challenges filed within a certain period have been resolved.
Not to be outdone, on Monday President Donald Trump signed an executive order that emulates a reform adopted by the U.K. which generally requires agencies seeking to impose a new rule to repeal two or more existing regulations costing at least as much.
Given the growth in regulatory power and costs, which deprive people of their freedom and livelihoods and depress economic growth, such measures would be a welcome relief, and we hope to see more of them, like Assemblyman Fong’s bill, adopted in California as well.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.